linux-kernel - Re: FatELF patches...

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091102091611.60dfeea1@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:16:11 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus@...ulus.org>
Cc:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FatELF patches...

> I'm certain if we made a Venn diagram, there would be an overlap. But 
> FatELF solves different problems than package managers, and in the case of 
> ia32 compatibility packages, it helps the package manager solve its 
> problems better.

Not really - as I said it drives disk usage up, it drives network
bandwidth up (which is a big issue for a distro vendor) and the package
manager and file system exist to avoid this kind of mess being needed.

You can ask the same question as FatELF the other way around and it
becomes even more obvious that it's a bad idea.

Imagine you did it by name not by architecture. So you had a single
"FatDirectory" file for /bin, /sbin and /usr/bin. It means you don't have
to worry about people having different sets of binaries, it means they
are always compatible. And like FatELF it's not a very good idea.

Welcome to the invention of the directory.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/